Proud to be American

I just watched USA win hockey gold and want to reflect on patriotism.

The blameless fanatic

Was reading a bit about automatic writing by Yeats this morning and his interest in the occult, which led to discovering a text from Sinnett called Esoteric Buddhism. Like many morning reading sessions, one click led to another, and I found a few quotes I wanted to save for posterity's sake. Warnings against fundamentalism and fear of The Other are on my mind a lot lately...but the beauty of the bold type deserves to be saved (my emphasis added).

Perhaps to understand the hatred of the fanatic, we must study how one acquires a blamelessly devoted attitude of mind:

"Nothing can produce more disastrous effects on human progress, as regards the destiny of individuals, than the very prevalent notion that one religion followed out in a pious spirit, is as good as another, and that if such and such doctrines are perhaps absurd when you look into them, the great majority of good people will never think of their absurdity, but will recite them in a blamelessly devoted attitude of mind." (Sinnett 1885, pp. 194–195; Guénon 2004, p. 126.)

Sinnett, A. P. (1885) [1883]. Esoteric Buddhism (5th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall Ltd

"It is priestly imposture that rendered these gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is the belief in God and gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them." (Barker 1924, Letter 10.)

Kuthumi; et al. (1924). Barker, A. T. (ed.). The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett from the Mahatmas M. & K. H. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company Publishers

Punishment and condemnation

I've heard people ask the same question that Robert Wright, author of Moral Animal, poses in this column:

In this view, if I had Tiger Woods’s genes, and was born into his environment, I’d become exactly what he’s become. And so too with all others who violate norms or laws, including the most heinous criminals: If any of us had been born with their genes, into their environment, presumably we’d have become them. So how can we possibly condemn or punish them? Yet, as a practical matter, we have to punish heinous criminals, right?

First, I'd like to respond to his major premise: that athletes like Tiger serve as de facto role models in our society, and so their personal behavior off the athletic field is very important. He may be right that children do hold up athletes as role models, but perhaps this is a failure in our parenting. Perhaps the focus ought to be on getting children to recognize altruistic and philanthropic behaviors as superior indicators of character, and thus emulation, to athletic prowess. Perhaps we should spend more time explaining that athletes are just really good at their sport, not superheroes worthy of all-around emulation.

Back to his moral dilemma: it's not so troubling to worry about justification if all we're doing is condemning bad behavior with rhetoric. But the more substantive thorny issue involves crime and punishment: "Well, if people just behave how their genes and environment cause them to, then how can we blame/condemn them for it?" The feeling is that we aren't justified in blaming someone if they "can't help themselves" on some level.

It's important to note that the issue of justice and punishment don't have to involve some sort of moral high ground. When we lock up a murderer or rapist, we are protecting society from a dangerous person. On purely utilitarian grounds, this person has forfeited their right to go freely in society by behaving in such a way as to pose a grave threat to the freedoms of others to do the same. And so we don't have to say we're "better" than that person. We just have to say that we don't pose the same threat as they do, and so punishment does not have to equal condemnation.

"If I Only Had a Gun" ABCNews 20/20

First: I have two loaded shotguns within reach of my bed for home defense. Consider that before labeling me the new epithet: hoplophobe. I think it is wise to have a loaded shotgun in your home for this reason, but I obviously think it should be kept completely safe from children and teenagers. This was one of the main focal points of the program -- the statistics involving gun violence are staggering.

One of the major thrusts of the news piece was to inform viewers about the ridiculous gun show loophole that allows criminals and crazy people to buy guns, no questions asked, with no tracking records. It's fuc*ing insane. A young man whose sister was killed at VT went in and bought 15 guns in an hour, including handguns and shotguns and an assault rifle, no questions asked. No ID needed. And lawmakers have zero balls to do anything about it because they are beholden to gun nuts in this country.

All a sane citizen can hope for is a common sense common ground between allowing assault weapons to be sold to criminals and banning all guns outright. And that sort of middle ground does exist. In England, handguns are illegal and their murder rate is one-third of ours. Handguns are used in 8 of 10 murders by firearms. That still gives law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, just not a certain kind of them. Obviously, that's already the case! We already can't legally own Stinger missiles either, but is that an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights? No. Ditto for many other kinds of "arms" that are illegal.

I watched the 20/20 piece and came away semi-informed as to the general difficulty of responding with force when a shooter is causing carnage all around you. Basically, your adrenaline counteracts your ability to think clearly and aim effectively, and likely your gun is stowed in an inconvenient place so that you will have to be exposed to pull it out and use it. I don't want to carry concealed, mainly due to the fact that I don't think we need to return to the Wild West where everyone is out there with a gun fending for themselves. The probability of needing to have a gun to defend yourself is basically very unlikely compared to the risk involved in carrying one.

I have often argued with gun nuts that while there were 134 "justifiable homicides" with a handgun in 1999, there were 866 (6.5 times that many) accidental fatal shootings, 314 deaths where intent was unclear, 12,102 murders and 17,424 suicides in 1998. There were 336 deaths of children by accidental shootings in 1998. This basically shows you that the idea that you'll likely need to defend yourself with lethal force is a poor excuse for carrying a gun. It is 3 times likelier a child will be killed by your gun, 6.5 times likelier that someone will be accidentally killed with your gun, 120 times likelier someone will be murdered with it and 170 times likelier someone will use it to commit suicide. And, the 134 justifiables include police shootings! Probably less than a third of that number comes from citizens defending themselves and/or their homes. I will do some research this summer, rather than a few quick Google searches, and compile more relevant statistics and correlations.

Critics of the 20/20 program say the show was unrealistic, but I think they are distorting the facts. They claim the instructor immediately went for the kid with the gun, but as you can see from the clip, that is blatantly untrue. The instructor killed the lecturer first, then went right-to-left sweeping through the room, shooting everyone along the way. The students with the gun were often hit early because they stood erect, trying to unholster the weapon, rather than taking cover first. The other people in the room ran wildly in all directions, ducking.

Explain this to me

A victory today for freedom.

Now, I have a "traditional family": one woman, one man, a biological child by us.

Explain to me how allowing gay people to have the same right to marry whomever they choose as I have "threatens" my family?

Quote:

The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

Religious Right troglodytes don't want to "protect" me from the "threat" of gay marriage. They want to enforce their particular interpretation of one ancient religion's view of gay people on everyone else as law. They want our secular country turned into a theocratic state.

Please protect us from them.

Keep in mind how we're told that the media is completely biased the next time you read a newspaper that reports that Religious Right thugs want to "protect" us rather than the truth: that they want to make us into a Christian version of Iran.

Parent perceptions and teenage drinking

I read about a project by one of the Intel Society for Science contest winners in the NYT and it reminded me of a conversation I had last year with a drugs and alcohol expert. Ms. Jurman's research pointed out that when teenagers learn that their parent(s) crossed certain boundaries, it emboldened them to cross the same boundaries. I remember having a conversation with Jeff Wolfsberg last year about the myth of European culture having a dampening effect on teen alcohol abuse. Jeff shot that idea down, saying that the permissivity of European and Latin American cultures towards alcohol actually seemed to create more young alcoholics than in America, although he admitted we have a wider-spread problem with binge-drinking during college.

Jeff does support teaching teens preparing to leave for college how to drink (and how not to) using tips like these:

1. Never drink just for the sake of drinking, as a game or contest, or with the aim of getting drunk or forgetting troubles.
2. Don't drink on an empty stomach. Eat both before and while drinking.
3. Pace yourself. Until you are familiar with your own reactions to alcohol, don't consume more than one drink per hour. One drink can be a 12-ounce can or bottle of beer, a 4-ounce glass of wine, or 1 ounce of liquor in a mixed drink.
4. Remember that carbonated drinks get alcohol into the bloodstream faster.
   

Know when to say "when." Monitor your own feelings. Be wary of any changes in mood or perceptions.

I think it's difficult for reality-bound parents to ignore the fact that their children will learn how to use alcohol from them first, and then from culture if their parents don't teach them by example. I fully intend to drink responsibly around my child(ren) and show them by example how to ask others to drive and plan ahead and know your own limits. I think this is a far more effective teaching tool than scaring or controlling them into total abstinence (even if you could) during high school, after which, in college, they may find themselves passed out in a ditch in the first week. I guess one option is to ship your kids off to some "camp" to try to scare/train them off experiencing things.

I know I could've benefitted more from positive role models involving alcohol use, and I blame this absence partly for how I got so wild in high school. (Partly.) I ended up being told by AA people that I was an alcoholic (complete BS). By the way, AA sucks as a form of "treatment" and doctors are now realizing that there is no such thing as a binary solution for all people who abuse alcohol.

So while Ms. Jurman's findings indicate more teens will try alcohol if their parents did, it doesn't talk much about whether or not these teens use alcohol more responsibly than their peers if taught by example.

Democrats v. Republicans on the economy

Title sounds familiar for a reason (9/19).

I just wanted to catalog a few useful links that I have found to be integral to arguing with conservatives about economics.

update: 12/18

Although federal income taxes are progressive (get larger as income gets higher), all taxes do not, and as a share of one's income, the overall amount of taxes paid is fairly flat across all incomes. It literally comes down to a few points difference in total tax burden for people in the 2nd-5th quintiles of income.

Ezra Klein on the changes over time in overall tax burden (graph 1 source, graph 2 source)
Chart showing overall tax burden (CSM)
State and local tax burdens (NSN)
Washington Monthly on overall tax burden
NYT graph on overall tax burden (NYT article)
NYT graph on tax code changes and beneficiaries (NYT article)

11/1

Income inequality under Dems v. GOP (Bartels)
Income inequality under Dems v. GOP (chart, Krugman)
Income inequality under Dems v. GOP (Rolling Stone, Krugman)
Explanation of the causes of the financial crisis (Stiglitz)
The $3T War (Stiglitz)
Overall economic comparison of Dems v. GOP (Slate)
Overall economic comparison of Dems v. GOP (NYT, Alan Blinder)
How the GOP went from a $5.6T surplus to a $3.8T deficit (CBO)

Happiness and life's value

Full disclosure: I'm about to link to an article from Oprah's magazine. OTOH, it is a decent article written by an academic neuroscientist about happiness. Here are the five main points:

1. Find what you enjoy and are good at and immerse yourself in it.
2. Set out to deliberately make yourself happy by prioritizing it over relationships and career.
3. Avoid living in the past.
4. Invest and spend heavily of your self on a few close friends.
5. Don't ever associate enjoyment with guilt.
   

The reason I'm linking to this is I've been thinking over the meaning of happiness the past few days after receiving an email from a friend of mine who brought up the subject. He brought it up because he's a Christian and he has a non-Christian friend who seemed to make intimations of suicidal thoughts. He wrote me for advice as to what to say to her, presumably because he felt that his lack of ability to invoke God made advising her difficult or impossible. I wrote him back with a strategy much like that outlined in the article below: practical, real-life advice about finding something you enjoy and basking in it. On a deeper note, I've said before that I think the fact-value distinction is very important in considering things like, "what's the meaning of life?" I really don't think that adding God to the equation helps clarify that question, as it only pushes it back to "why would God make anything at all?" and "why would God allow such evil and suffering in the world?" and makes it more confusing. But furthering that idea is for another day.

Five Things Happy People Do
By Gabrielle LeBlanc
http://www.oprah.com/article/spirit/emotionalhealth/omag_200803_happy

Sages going back to Socrates have offered advice on how to be happy, but only now are scientists beginning to address this question with systematic, controlled research. Although many of the new studies reaffirm time-honored wisdom ("Do what you love," "To thine own self be true"), they also add a number of fresh twists and insights. We canvassed the leading experts on what happy people have in common—and why it's worth trying to become one of them:

They find their most golden self. Picture happiness. What do you see? A peaceful soul sitting in a field of daisies appreciating the moment? That kind of passive, pleasure-oriented—hedonic—contentment is definitely a component of overall happiness. But researchers now believe that eudaimonic well-being may be more important. Cobbled from the Greek eu ("good") and daimon ("spirit" or "deity"), eudaimonia means striving toward excellence based on one's unique talents and potential—Aristotle considered it to be the noblest goal in life. In his time, the Greeks believed that each child was blessed at birth with a personal daimon embodying the highest possible expression of his or her nature. One way they envisioned the daimon was as a golden figurine that would be revealed by cracking away an outer layer of cheap pottery (the person's baser exterior). The effort to know and realize one's most golden self—"personal growth," in today's lingo—is now the central concept of eudaimonia, which has also come to include continually taking on new challenges and fulfilling one's sense of purpose in life.

"Eudaimonic well-being is much more robust and satisfying than hedonic happiness, and it engages different parts of the brain," says Richard J. Davidson, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The positive emotion accompanying thoughts that are directed toward meaningful goals is one of the most enduring components of well-being." Eudaimonia is also good for the body. Women who scored high on psychological tests for it (they were purposefully engaged in life, pursued self-development) weighed less, slept better, and had fewer stress hormones and markers for heart disease than others—including those reporting hedonic happiness—according to a study led by Carol Ryff, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

They design their lives to bring in joy. It may seem obvious, but "people don't devote enough time to thinking seriously about how they spend their life and how much of it they actually enjoy," says David Schkade, PhD, a psychologist and professor of management at the University of California San Diego. In a recent study, Schkade and colleagues asked more than 900 working women to write down everything they'd done the day before. Afterward, they reviewed their diaries and evaluated how they felt at each point. When the women saw how much time they spent on activities they didn't like, "some people had tears in their eyes," Schkade says. "They didn't realize their happiness was something they could design and have control over."

Analyzing one's life isn't necessarily easy and may require questioning long-held assumptions. A high-powered career might, in fact, turn out to be unfulfilling; a committed relationship once longed for could end up being irritating with all the compromising that comes with having a partner. Dreams can be hard to abandon, even when they've turned sour.

Fortunately, changes don't have to be big ones to tip the joy in your favor. Schkade says that if you transfer even an hour of your day from an activity you hate (commuting, scrubbing the bathroom) to one you like (reading, spending time with friends), you should see a significant improvement in your overall happiness. Taking action is key. Another recent study, at the University of Missouri, compared college students who made intentional changes (joining a club, upgrading their study habits) with others who passively experienced positive turns in their circumstances (receiving a scholarship, being relieved of a bad roommate). All the students were happier in the short term, but only the group who made deliberate changes stayed that way.

They avoid "if only" fantasies. If only I get a better job…find a man…lose the weight…life will be perfect. Happy people don't buy into this kind of thinking.

The latest research shows that we're surprisingly bad at predicting what will make us happy. People also tend to misjudge their contentment when zeroing in on a single aspect of their life—it's called the focusing illusion. In one study, single subjects were asked, "How happy are you with your life in general?" and "How many dates did you have last month?" When the dating question was asked first, their romantic life weighed more heavily into how they rated their overall happiness than when the questions were reversed.

The other argument against "if only" fantasies has to do with "hedonic adaptation"—the brain's natural dimming effect, which guarantees that a new house won't generate the same pleasure a year after its purchase and the thrill of having a boyfriend will ebb as you get used to being part of a couple. Happy people are wise to this, which is why they keep their lives full of novelty, even if it's just trying a new activity (diving, yoga) or putting a new spin on an old favorite (kundalini instead of vinyasa).

They put best friends first. It's no surprise that social engagement is one of the most important contributors to happiness. What's news is that the nature of the relationship counts. Compared with dashing around chatting with acquaintances, you get more joy from spending longer periods of time with a close friend, according to research by Meliksah Demir, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at Northern Arizona University. And the best-friend benefit doesn't necessarily come from delving into heavy discussions. One of the most essential pleasures of close friendship, Demir found, is simple companionship, "just hanging out," as he says, hitting the mall or going to the movies together and eating popcorn in the dark.

They allow themselves to be happy. As much as we all think we want it, many of us are convinced, deep down, that it's wrong to be happy (or too happy). Whether the belief comes from religion, culture, or the family you were raised in, it usually leaves you feeling guilty if you're having fun.

"Some people would say you shouldn't strive for personal happiness until you've taken care of everyone in the world who is starving or doesn't have adequate medical care," says Howard Cutler, MD, coauthor with the Dalai Lama of The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World. "The Dalai Lama believes you should pursue both simultaneously. For one thing, there is clear research showing that happy people tend to be more open to helping others. They also make better spouses and parents." And in one famous study, nuns whose autobiographies expressed positive emotions (such as gratitude and optimism) lived seven to 10-and-a-half years longer than other nuns. So, for any die-hard pessimist who still needs persuading, just think of how much more you can help the world if you allow a little happiness into your life.

Gabrielle Leblanc is a writer and neuroscientist in Washington, D.C.

Good stuff.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal

Go ahead. Call me a bleeding heart liberal if you want to. But supporting this grotesque mockery of "sport" -- shooting wolves from airplanes -- is just abominable. And Palin supports it.

There's hunting for food then there's bloodsport. I'm all for the 2nd Am protecting gun rights and all, as well as reasonable hunting laws. However, these beautiful animals are viciously tortured, not cleanly and painlessly killed for any good purpose.

That's ignoring all the other reasons to vote against the McCain-Palin ticket.

Dialog with Andy

Two of the guys at work are very thoughtful theists who I enjoy bantering with about theological issues. I've posted my recent dialog with Andy below, his responses are indented further and mine are between carets (>>, <<). The hyperlinks have been added to this to refer to things I've already written on the topics:

Andy wrote:

God is recorded in the sacred writ as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I've been pondering lately the implications of the third quality, given what we've learned about relativity.

>>I actually don't know if I agree with this premise or not. I think that early Christian thought didn't have this concept, but that later Christian thinkers, re-discovering philosophy from the Greeks and Romans, adopted it. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. What I would bring up, though, are certain aspects of the OT, in particular, where God asks questions and other things in the Bible that don't comport well in a literal reading with these properties.<<

Someone ostensibly traveling at the speed of light need not age. (Is this correct?) The closer one travels to the speed of light, the slower time "moves." (I guess in actuality, there may somehow be a continuum and time moves more slowly as speeds are gradually increased, so that even at 60 miles an hour, you might age a fraction slower than someone standing still?) But this is not central to my thoughts.

>>You are right, but an important distinction: Remember that in physics, you must always clarify your frame of reference. More time passes for an observer to your frame of reference than for you within the frame of reference. It isn't that there is such a universal thing as "time" -- in the same way that there isn't such a universal thing as "space" -- space-time is experienced locally for each person, thus the need for different frames of reference. In other words, if God has on a watch, and goes near the speed of light from X to Y and back to X, the amount of time that has passed for God will be very very little compared to what we experienced in watching the space ship leave and return (observers).

But...yes, this is the basis for the Lorentz factor.<<

I cannot be in two places (let's call them points X and Y in three dimensions) "at the same time." However, as my speed increases, I can move from point X to point Y, closer and closer to "the same time" Time becomes a sort of fourth dimension, so that as I move faster, the interrelatedness and interdependence of time and space become apparent. Indeed, exceeding the speed of light even allows me to move backward on the timeline?

>>Indeed, the four-dimensional nature of space-time makes it such that if you sort of have to pick three to move through rapidly, so that you are not moving through the fourth rapidly. A really good overview of both special and general relativity is given in both of Brian Greene's layman-oriented books: The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos.<<

The Christian theistic concept of a God that exists outside of physical time (Ravi Zacharias maintains that the Judeo-Christian God is the only God of the major world religions that attempts to speak of a God existing outside of time) then allows for a quite elementary explanation of an omnipresent God, in the sense that God is able to be in multiple places at the same time. I don't know whether it's better to explain it as God moving at an extremely fast speed, so that time slows or even reverses, allowing God to move back and forth on the space-time continuum, or whether you simply view God as existing outside of the fourth dimension of time, able to move through space without the constraints of time. In either case, this would make issues like prophecy, omnipresence, etc, all much more palatable to our limited human reason. God can simultaneously be at points X and Y, given his ability to "move quckly" and be free from the constraints of time. And so on for points, Z, W, V, etc. :) Any thoughts?

>>There is an a priori issue that must be addressed about the idea of omnipresence: what does it mean to say that God "is" somewhere? Is God even composed of a substance? If so, then we could speak of how His matter is located within space-time at those coordinates (think: Columbia, SC are the 3 space dimensions and Sun, 8/24/08 @ 1 PM is the 1 time dimension), but then we start to wonder -- is God's matter/substance interspersed between physical matter/substances? Is it like God exists between the atoms in my body (and everywhere else), and if so, then can we say that God exists "within" space-time? Can we say that God is actually omnipresent, since to be between two things is not to be at those actual things?

I think that a lot of the properties ascribed to God don't withstand serious logical scrutiny. If God "is" somewhere, does that mean being a part of that space/matter, or distinct from it? If God is "at" distinct coordinates within space-time, then is God is just as much a part of the universe as you and I? Then does that make God just as bound to the laws of physics as we are? And if so, how could God create that which God is a part of?

I don't think that special (or general) relativity really serves to provide a basis for omnipresence, because omnipresence itself is antithetical to the concepts of physics.

There is also a fundamental physical issue that makes it problematic to say that relativity "allows for a quite elementary explanation" of omnipresence. One of the things relativity does is prevent anything with mass from actually moving at the speed of light, and definitely not faster than it. [note: a differentiation must be made between c (3.0 x 10^8 m/s) and the speed of light outside of a vacuum (c/n), thus things like the faster-than-light Cherenkov radiation observed in nuclear cores]. This is a first principle issue that would diminish the ability to use the physics to justify omnipresence. Nothing is actually allowed to travel at light speed with mass, and it must travel in only one distinct direction at a time. This would also prevent traveling backwards through time as nothing could travel faster-than-light.

If God is massless, then in that sense God is not composed of anything. If God is not composed of anything, then God isn't "located" anywhere. And that gets back to the a priori issue of whether omnipresence even makes sense. You can't say, "God is at coordinates: A, B, C, D within space-time," because there isn't any "stuff" (matter/substance) which actually occupies space or time there.

In addition, as I said above, special relativity allows for objects moving rapidly in three dimensions to move very slowly in the fourth. This would put a lot of limits on your idea of being "able to be in multiple places at the same time" -- for although God could (theoretically) travel from X to Y with no apparent time loss to the observer (us), this framework still puts God thoroughly "inside" space-time. God's frame of reference is still very much bound by space-time in the sense that time still passes for God. So God is still bound to physics, rather than, as most theists believe, able to create physics.

So, to me, to try to use physics to justify or explain omnipresence is both unnecessary and illogical. You can't use a physical theory to try to explain an immaterial God. You can still believe in God, of course, but you can't support the property of omnipresence using physics.<<

On an unrelated note, what do you think about having some sort of "faith forum" in the chapel from time to time, where different faculty or staff are free to speak on topics of deeper significance, eventually even allowing some debates, Q & A, apologetic lectures, etc. I think it would be neat to all come under one figurative big tent in the collective pursuit of truth.

>>I think that sort of thing would be great. I just don't know if I personally would want to participate as a religious skeptic, since it could really be a bad thing for me career-wise. A lot of parents would just never forgive me or like me again if they heard me present arguments against the existence of a theistic God, and you might be surprised at the ways that some people would bring that up later on as ammo against me. But I would go, I would enjoy it, and I would push my students to attend. I just don't know if I personally would want to be up there at the podium/lectern. Maybe in a few years...

-------- Original Message --------

	Subject:	Re: chat yesterday
	Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
	From:	Andy

Ultimately, for better or worse, I chose to focus on one or two key points. I’ve found in discussions like this it’s quite easy to try to advance on a dozen different concurrent fronts, leaving both sides unable to address any of the issues fully. Perhaps we just take a bite-size piece at a time in our pursuit of the truth. And I’ll try to provide a more timely response next time, should you respond.

>>I understand and agree.<<

First, by way of introduction, let me say that I understand why it would appear to you that Christ’s claim to BE truth is a conflation of terminology. You must admit this would follow naturally for someone who denies any metaphysical personality*. J But assume for the sake of argument that that a metaphysical personality exists (for you must grant that a finite being cannot posit with any certainty the non-existence of an infinite one). If you can picture even for a moment that this possibility exists, it becomes easier to follow Christ’s seemingly incongruous statements.

>>It seems here, and below with your asterisk-marked footnote, you may be admitting that there are things that are not philosophically "neutral" to discuss. If that is so, then you may be literally wasting your time in this dialog. I don't think that it is so. I think that most of what we'll disagree on can be examined objectively without the need for presupposing a certain viewpoint. I hope so, or else we're just arguing post hoc to legitimize (to ourselves, mostly) what we already want to believe is true, because we can't be persuaded by rational argument.

I don't think it's possible to ascribe personhood to a logical relationship. Logical relations and things like properties are the "basement" or foundation in metaphysics -- part of what philosophers refer to as universals, and there are some different ways that they describe them: nominalism, conceptualism and realism. Without getting off on a tangent, truth is a relation, or a correspondence between particulars. It is also universal because it is the relation or correspondence between an infinite number of particulars.

Personhood implies a mind (intentionality), and a mind implies more than one simple relation or property. Therefore, a mind occurs much higher up on the scale of metaphysics. Mind is not a universal. This is true whether or not I believe in God or an immaterial spirit. Minds are more than just one logical relation or property, but cannot be an infinite number of them. It's a non sequitur to say that relations between things are equal to the things themselves: walking is not just two legs, but the relationship between how they move in space-time; thinking is not just a brain, but how it functions in space-time. Another example: if Jesus is truth, and if it is true that evil exists, then Jesus is the evil that exists. I think we'd both agree that there is an error in the logic here.<<

In the same way, when he claims in the same unbelievable statement to be THE truth, is he saying that he is the representation of every physical truth? Of course not. But is he the only truth that matters in an ultimate, metaphysical sense?

>>But determining that which is true depends on knowing how logic works. Logically, Jesus can be "the way to avoid damnation" or "the only way to heaven" or something like that. Jesus cannot be "truth, period"...which is what people sometimes say or imply by referring to Jesus as truth. I think we probably agree on that.<<

I’ve found it a fascinating reinforcement of this concept that in many cases, people who reject Christ’s claims often begin to part ways with Christ as the source of Truth when a clear prohibition of scripture does not square with their lifestyle. They are unwilling to adhere to God’s moral law, and seeking to create their own moral code, they exchange the metaphysical “truth” of scripture for their own metaphysical “truth,” typically establishing moral boundaries that fit their lifestyle. Isn’t it interesting that modern attempts to invent a new morality seldom forge any rules that would de-legitimize the new moralist’s own behavior? The moral code they create always seems conveniently to square with their current behavior.

>>As I think you know, I'm not a moral relativist. Thus, a lot of what you said above doesn't apply to me. However, I can say that my lifestyle today versus my lifestyle at the time I was in church are pretty much identical. That is, I haven't taken up anything since leaving the church that was prohibited, and thus there was no incentive for decadence for me.

I'm not sure if you are in this boat, but lots of people don't believe that atheists exist. It's an interesting thing for me to hear that, as I wonder how these same people would react to me if I claimed that religion was just opiate for the masses, or said, "No one really believes in God. Deep down they know it's an invented device to help us live with the belief that there's cosmic significance to our existence, and it helps us cope with death and hardships. But they establish this to fit their lifestyle, their desire to believe that we're all more important than we really are..." It's a little insulting, isn't it? And presumptuous. Now, am I saying that you may not be correct about *some* people? No. But I'm sure the above parallel argument (that no one really believes in God) also applies about *some* people as well. I'll agree with you that sometimes it is the case that person X actually believes in the Bible and the interpretations of it given by Evangelicals, but really wants to "fornicate" and engage in "lasciviousness" (I love the KJV), and so might try to stop believing in the suddenly-inconvenient moral standard that it is against God's commandments.

However, it doesn't explain, at all, any transition in metaphysical beliefs from conservative/Evangelical Christian all the way to atheist. It may explain why certain people would relax their moral standards in order to assuage their own guilt. But, all one would need to do is transition from conservative/Evangelical Christian to a liberal Christian (e.g., Unitarian Universalist) or Deist or any of the other hundreds of options in between. There's no need to change one's metaphysical views in order to change one's moral views.

Also, consider this: does it really serve a purpose to invent/create something you don't *actually believe* is true? This implies that people reject what is true in order to do what they want, and yet if they really don't *believe* that what they reject was wrong, then they're self-delusional, and one would think, probably won't be able to live with a mind divided between what one wants to be true versus what one really thinks is true. How does it gain any relief to the sinner who pretends not to believe in his sin, but deep down still feels the guilt and shame?

The last part of your sentence could be (and probably was) used to explain why the church no longer puts people in stocks, no longer prohibits movies, music, technology, etc., etc., etc. That is, one could always say that freedom/liberty of conscience is really a "crutch" or a symptom/sign of the loss of spiritual goodness. Lots of people still refuse to allow women to wear pants or makeup, etc., etc., and they might look at you and say, "Isn't it interesting, Andy, that your 'new morality' is supposed to be grounded in God's grace and liberty, but it always legitimizes those things you already *want* to do?!?!?" The same logic works there. I think the premise is what's flawed.<<

Interestingly, while your moral realism proposes that there is a transcendent moral standard out there, in the same way that you would accuse those who follow a certain religion of “creating” their own codes through their own creativity, I believe that it’s impossible for you to prove that the moral realist is not doing ultimately the same thing—as every moral realist out there may not agree on morality, and must fabricate his own moral code. I think more problematic, though, is the issue of consequences. What consequences does Hitler suffer for his actions?

>>By your own beliefs, if *anyone* repents and asks God for forgiveness, they will suffer no consequences in the afterlife for their actions, yes? And thus the dilemma of many theistic beliefs is exposed -- you can't have both mercy and justice. You can have mercy for some and justice for others. To say that by Jesus' death, justice is served, is to pervert what justice means: Jesus was said to be morally perfect and thus innocent. Letting someone innocent "take the fall" for someone guilty is not just. It's merciful on the part of the one who volunteered to take the fall. <<

Perhaps we can relegate this to our next debate.

>>Probably a good idea. This can get convoluted in a hurry.<<

To say something “ought” to be a certain way becomes a meaningless distinction, simply a set of neurons firing in your brain at the present time, if there are no consequences. It immediately begs the questions, “Who says so?” and more importantly, “So what?” To put a moral standard out there that no one need follow might avoid the unpleasant thought of ultimate consequences in the afterlife, but it would seem there is little value in following this moral law, and little danger in breaking it. I would be eager to hear your thoughts on this, though, since I haven’t studied it except for a cursory reading online…

>>In responding to that, I would point out that there are no consequences for not believing that 2+2=4. Morality, to me, is the same way. You don't have to have consequences in an afterlife in order to make something true.

Causing harm is immoral. You (all of us) ought not cause harm.

That's just the simple truth of the matter. Trying to get into why, and how, and whether or not someone believes it or accepts it are all different issues. I would say, briefly, that just as singular objects have a metaphysical property about them that we call "1", so moral actions have a metaphysical property that we call "good" or "evil". The labels themselves may be arbitrary (imagine for a moment switching around the labels, or the numbers), but the underlying properties are not. And the underlying properties (causing harm, or alleviating suffering) exist independently of our human mind and desire.

In the same way that 2+2=4, morality is all about causing harm and recognizing the symmetry principle: you have to apply the standard of actions to others that you want applied to yourself.<<

Looking forward to more good discussions on Truth, Andy

Me too! Now it's your turn. Tag, you're it!

I'll post the responses later on. Since it took us a few months to get this dialog fully going, it'll probably be a while.

The fear of reprisals among atheists

The conversation on the message board at GC is turning to the issue of making our membership directory there private to non-members. (It is now private) Charlie, the same guy I debated concerning alternative energy, has of course waxed poetic randroid-style about fear and courage and individuality. While I think comparing the "coming out as atheists" thing to a civil rights movement is fallacious, I do know of many instances of workplace discrimination and illegal terminations based on atheism. However, I don't like the comparison between atheist "movements" and civil rights movements:

Most important is that this isn't about ending some entrenched economic system or clear and flagrant inequality before the law. We have none of the same legal and moral authority that civil rights and abolitionist groups had on their side. And it was this very issue that became an argument a while back between D.J. Grothe and PZ when atheists today were contrasted to civil rights crusaders in the 60s. Ditto with gay rights groups, who are still denied marriage and have been targets of violence since time out of mind. We have to go back to the Puritans or Bruno to get that sort of comparison with atheists.

Honestly, I feel that I could face a risk to my job security if my boss(es) were pressured regarding the extent of my nonreligion, given ties to groups like Godless Columbia. My workplace is susceptible to outside pressures and politics. But, this sort of prejudice is not akin to the legal discrimination that other groups face based on race, sex and sexual preference.

If people want their privacy, they should have it, while not walking around worrying about being the victim of a hate crime like that at the UU of Knoxville. Now, on to the latest post by Charlie:

I think everyone is making more of this than what it is. I don't think anyone is more out there than myself, and the negative backlash I have received has been minimal.

I think you should separate out two very different things:

1) fear of violence
2) fear of reprisals -- attempts to smear you, get you fired, &c

As for (1), you are a physically-large male with an agressive attitude, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you neither worry about, nor have reason to, acts of violence directed against you for your lack of religious beliefs.

As for (2), you are lucky. Many of us work in places that we can easily be fired for minor offenses, and although saying, "I'll sue!" sounds good and all, at best, this will lead to months of no pay followed by (hopefully) reinstatement and some coverage of our legal fees. Given the conservative composition of the high courts and recent relevant rulings in areas of labor protection, especially Enquist v. Oregon Dept. of Ag. (ruling), I wouldn't hold my breath.

I keep a blog that my boss reads on a regular basis where I publish my unvarnished opinions on anything and everything. No backlash. In fact, it is often the topic of conversation at work.

Then you are obviously lucky to work under someone who isn't a bigot. Many are not so lucky. I don't think that the people here are worried about "people not liking me at work," but rather, some Evangelical-type supervisor who would find a way to start putting undue pressure on you or finding ways to discredit your job performance once they learned.

People disagree with me, but they respect me. That is because I don't hide in fear or shame.

When I was at the University of Florida, I started the only non-theistic student group on campus and have even been on national TV to defend my views. (I argued against the placement of a Decalogue monument in Dixie County, Florida. While we were there, people cussed at me from the crowd gathered around and said crap to my wife while I was on-camera. Unfortunately, the satellite feed was cut off right as it was getting ready to be my turn to talk to Alan Colmes, who would've let me speak uninterrupted for a few minutes. I still wonder if Hannity had me cut off because I sounded half-competent and cognizant of the facts surrounding the other cases he referenced...)

Does that sound like I "hide" from being an atheist?

However, now that I'm working, with a baby on the way, the security and stability of my job is far more important than having my meetup.com profile public. In the question of risk versus reward, what is the reward? The real risk I face is in having a someone related to work find something online about me they don't agree with, then rally others to have me fired. There's something to be said about people's poor grasp on the concept of complete liberty in the freedom of expression.

The real threat here is not getting assaulted or fired. It is being embarrassed. It is sticking out from the herd. It is being an individual.

If you say so. Sounds to me like you don't really care about the evidence of discrimination based on atheism in the workplace and school for others. You just choose to pretend all that doesn't exist or doesn't matter. If you feel strongly that it's about "being embarrassed" then that's all that matters to you, right?

I am with Seneca when he said that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Yeah because having a public membership directory of a meetup group is to "die on your feet", while having a private one to non-members is to "live on your knees"...

Believe me when I say that everyone of you is more likely to die or be injured in a car wreck than to be assaulted or lose your job as a consequence of being a freethinker.

So do you wear a seat belt, or is that also fear? Do you show courage and "die on your feet" by not wearing a seat belt?

It's about risk and reward Charlie, nothing more. Having a private membership directory to non-members is not "hiding in fear" any more than your wearing a seat belt in the car is "driving in fear".

Meatlessness

Yesterday, Kristof of the NYT wrote a column about animal rights:

So, yes, I eat meat (even, hesitantly, goose). But I draw the line at animals being raised in cruel conditions. The law punishes teenage boys who tie up and abuse a stray cat. So why allow industrialists to run factory farms that keep pigs almost all their lives in tiny pens that are barely bigger than they are?

Defining what is cruel is, of course, extraordinarily difficult. But penning pigs or veal calves so tightly that they cannot turn around seems to cross that line.

More broadly, the tide of history is moving toward the protection of animal rights, and the brutal conditions in which they are sometimes now raised will eventually be banned. Someday, vegetarianism may even be the norm.

Perhaps it seems like soggy sentimentality as well as hypocrisy to stand up for animal rights, particularly when I enjoy dining on these same animals. But my view was shaped by those days in the barn as a kid, scrambling after geese I gradually came to admire.

So I’ll enjoy the barbecues this summer, but I’ll also know that every hamburger patty has a back story, and that every tin of goose liver pâté could tell its own rich tale of love and loyalty.

His colleague, Mark Bittman, gave a talk at TED that had a lot more moral force behind it:

I went for about a year eating very, very little meat. I gained a lot of weight. Although I wasn't 100% strict, since I would partake of fish and seafood on occasion, I certainly felt good about my decision. When people asked me why I was a vegetarian, I told them three reasons:

1. ethics -- I don't like to cause animals to suffer; they feel pain just like we do
2. health -- studies have been done showing that a plant-based diet is very good for your ticker, while red meat has been clearly linked to cancer and heart disease
   
3. the environment -- the amount of our resources diverted to raising animals for food is vast, and the efficiency of this system is low, compared to directly growing plants for human consumption

Now, none of those three things changes whether or not you choose to be a vegetarian, however, after reading Kristof I don't see how he can make the arguments he makes with a straight face while admitting to eating meat. He talks about the increasing role and rectitude of animal rights, and how his own experiences on a farm support that, but then admits to enjoying burgers and goose liver.

I guess it's like religion: they preach perfection while admitting to being imperfect with a straight face.

Back to me for a moment, this summer I've started eating some poultry again. For one thing, I am getting really tired of what we eat; for another thing, I've gotten really fat. Part of the problem is just eating too many damned carbs, but I think the bigger problem for me is the feeling of being full. High-protein foods are very filling to me, while low-protein foods leave my stomach rumbling an hour later.

Unlike Kristof, I'll not preach it if I'm not practicing it, but I don't know how much I did before.

The big issue for me is getting people to wake up to the environmental impact of raising cattle, but I am afraid that won't happen any time soon.

Hate crime at UU church

First, no sense can be made of hatred like that displayed at the church shooting in Knoxville, but the apparent logic of this Jim Adkisson is so particularly twisted it needs to be highlighted:

"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV told reporters on Monday.

Authorities also discovered a letter from the state government telling Adkisson he was having his food stamps reduced or eliminated, police said.

"He did express that frustration, that the liberal movement was getting more jobs," Owen said. "And he felt like he was being kept out of the loop because of his age."

As I wrote recently, welfare reform occurred under huge conservative pressure that began during the Reagan years and culminated in welfare reform passed during the GOP-takeover Congress under Clinton.

Blaming liberals for the loss of social benefits is fucktarded.

On a quasi-related note, Bushonomics predict a record federal deficit this year: $490B, in part due to the stimulus package passed by the Democratic Congress.

VT shooting & gun laws

It's hard to believe that it's been a year since the VT shootings. It's harder still to believe that Virginians refused to amend gun statutes to protect citizens from mentally-disturbed persons making gun purchases.

NRA continues to hold dominion over Virginia
Posted January 26th, 2008 at 9:30 am

Guest Post by Morbo

After the Virginia Tech massacre, I wrote a post predicting that the horrific incident would do nothing to change our gun policy. I secretly hoped I’d be proven wrong. Sadly, it looks like I won’t.

In Virginia, lawmakers have rejected modest legislation closing a loophole that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing a background check. This should be a no-brainer after what happened, but still the measure failed.

Reported The Washington Post:

Gun-control advocates, including survivors of the April 16 shooting rampage that took the lives of 32 victims at Virginia Tech, poured into a Senate committee meeting to support a bill that would require background checks for all gun-show sales. They then staged a “lie-in,” lying on their backs outside the Capitol to draw attention to gun deaths in Virginia last year.

Some of the survivors offered compelling personal testimony. Colin Goddard, 22, who survived the shootings and is now a senior at the school, cut to the chase when he said: “People tell me I am alive because of God or luck or a bunch of other stuff. I don’t know how much I can accept any of those, but one thing I can’t accept is that it was just criminals being criminals and I was just caught in the wrong situation at the wrong time.”

Amazingly, several gun nuts attended this event with weapons strapped on their hips. That’s right — in Virginia, it is legal to attend a public meeting of government representatives wearing a pistol. One complained that background checks are “onerous” because they can take as long as one day to complete.

At the hearing, some of the surviving students were approached by gun nuts who explained to them that had the students been armed, they could have taken out the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui. These gun nuts are clearly disturbed — yet the legislature listens to them, not the families of those who were killed.

A panel of the Virginia House of Delegates had already voted down closing the loophole. The Senate hearing was an attempt to revive it, but on Wednesday the members of the Courts of Justice Committee voted it down 9-6. All seven Republicans on the committee voted against it, as did two Democrats.

To the gun nuts, “gun control” is synonymous with seizure of weapons. They do this on purpose to frighten people. Thus, the debate becomes whether people can have guns or not instead of what reasonable restrictions we can put in place to make sure the wrong people don’t have access to guns. I don’t want to take away the rifle your uncle Fred uses to hunt deer. I do want to make sure that a deranged person can’t go to a gun show, walk out with an assault rifle and head for the nearest middle school.

If Virginia won’t even pass a baby-step measure like this in the wake of the Virginia Tech killings, then all hope for any sensible gun laws in that state is lost. As I said back in April, we are left to wait until some other deranged person decides to top Cho Seung-Hui’s grim record.

After this was written, we had the NIU shootings. Did he get those guns illegally? Nope.

The graduate student bought two of his four guns at a Champaign, Ill., gun store Saturday — indicating that he had been planning his assault for at least six days, ABC News' Richard Esposito and Pierre Thomas report. The other weapons were purchased from the same store in December and August 2007.

Rand & Ingersoll

Where does that odd combo come from?

Krugman mentions that colleges are now being paid to sponsor reading of Rand's work. It's sad if they don't merit academic attention on their own and have to be subsidized. I did enjoy reading Atlas Shrugged and part of The Fountainhead, and I've even written my thoughts on her, but I would agree that they aren't really worthy of a required reading list. The ideas in them, though, are great for philosophy classes & clubs.

Tom Flynn is on Point of Inquiry talking about Ingersoll. I'm a big fan of Ingersoll, and have been since even before reading his bio.

I think Rand & Ingersoll have a lot in common -- they're almost entirely adored only by agnostics and atheists, and they are neither widely known, despite having written and said some very interesting things.

Using income inequality as a measure of political ideology

Courtesy Dani Rodrik, here is American politics in one picture:

It's from this new book by Larry Bartels, an economist at Princeton.

You'll notice I touched up the original by using the font feature in MS Paint to overlay new fonts on the scanned version, which was a little rough. I did my best to align the values with the hash marks, and I obviously did not move the data points, just darkened the lines a little.

Krugman's blog yesterday noted that the lack of a mechanism is daunting to some who would challenge the "correlation vs. causation" issue here.

Academic freedom is for schmucks

Remember Cedarville U.? (Can't bear to call it a genuine "university")

It's in the news again.

On the other side of the irrational-rational divide, a particle physicist just got elected! I happen to think that if we stack Congress with enough Ph.D. scientists, our policies will finally be evidence-based...call me a dreamer!

Of flag lapel pins and shallow "patriotic" nonsense

Read Frank Rich...I do!

What repeatedly goes unrecognized by all of Mr. Obama’s opponents is that his political Kryptonite is the patriotism he offers in lieu of theirs. His upbeat notion of a yes-we-can national mobilization for the common good, however saccharine, speaks to the pride and idealism of Americans who are bone-weary of a patriotism defined exclusively by flag lapel pins, the fear of terrorism and the prospect of perpetual war.

Reminds me of the quote oft-attributed to Sinclair Lewis (erroneously, it appears):

"When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

My take: the sorts of people who work to convince you of their patriotism and their love of God are those you should be most afraid of.

Experience in the NYT by Kristof

Someone besides me (Kristof in the NYT) has decided to invoke Lincoln in talking about the "experience card" and Obama in presidential campaign politics.

And both Herbert and Krugman point out the failures of Reaganomics and the apparent arrival of the second Gilded Age beneath our noses.

Atheist aphorisms

Below the fold I've assembled some good short quotes and aphorisms in general for bumper stickers and T-shirts relating to religion and science.

Top Fifty Atheist T-Shirt and Bumper Sticker Aphorisms

1. Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers
2. Honk If Your Religious Beliefs Make You An Asshole
3. Intelligent Design Makes My Monkey Cry
4. Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.
5. There's A REASON Why Atheists Don't Fly Planes Into Buildings
6. "Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice Day."­ God.
7. God Doesn't Kill People. People Who Believe in God Kill People.
8. If There is No God, Then What Makes the Next Kleenex Pop Up?
9. He's Dead. It's Been 2,000 years. He's Not Coming Back. Get OVER It Already!
10. "All religion is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry." Edgar Allen Poe.
11. Viva La Evolución!
12. Actually, If You Look It Up, The Winter Solstice Is The Reason For The Season
13. I Wouldn't Trust Your God Even If He Did Exist
14. Cheeses Is Lard. Argue With THAT If You Can.
15. People Who Don't Want Their Beliefs Laughed at Shouldn't Have Such Funny Beliefs
16. Jesus is Coming? Don't Swallow That.
17. Threatening Children With Hell Is FUN!
18. GOD - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!
19. Jesus Told Me Republicans SUCK
20. God + Whacky Tobacky = Platypus
21. God Doesn't Exist. So, I Guess That Means No One Loves You.
22. When the Rapture Comes, We'll Get Our Country Back!
23. Q. How Do We Know the Holy Ghost Was Catholic? A. He Used the Rhythm Method Instead of a Condom.
24. You Say "Heretic" Like It Was a BAD Thing
25. I Love Christians. They Taste Like Chicken.
26. Science: It Works, Bitches.
27. "Intelligent Design" Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987
28. I Found God Between The Sheets
29. I Gave Up Superstitious Mumbo Jumbo For Lent
30. My Flying Monkey Can Beat Up Your Guardian Angel
31. Every Time You Play With Yourself, God Kills a Kitten
32. If God Wanted People to Believe in Him, Then Why Did He Invent Logic?
33. Praying Is Politically Correct Schizophrenia
34. ALL Americans Are African Americans
35. I Forget - Which Day Did God Make All The Fossils?
36. I Was An Atheist Until The Hindus Convinced Me That I Was God
37. The Spanish Inquisition: The Original Faith-based Initiative
38. If we were made in his image, when why aren't humans invisible too?
39. JESUS SAVES....You From Thinking For Yourself
40. How Can You Disbelieve in Evolution If You Can't Even Define It?
41. Q. How Can You Tell That Your God is Man-made? A. If He Hates All the Same People You Do.
42. Every Time You See a Rainbow, God is Having Gay Sex
43. I Went to Public School in Kansas and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt and a Poor Understanding of the Scientific Method.
44. WWJD = We Won. Jesus Died.
45. The Family That Prays Together is Brainwashing the Children
46. Oh, Look, Honey Another Pro-lifer For War
47. Another Godless Atheist for Peace and World Harmony
48. God is Unavailable Right Now. Can I Help You?
49. "When Lip Service to Some Mysterious Deity Permits Bestiality on Wednesday and Absolution on Sundays, Cash Me Out." Frank Sinatra.
50. No Gods. No Mullets.

The following I pulled from the comments section:

1. What schools need is a moment of science.
2. The last time we mixed politics and religion, people got burned at the stake.
3. "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (Treaty with Tripoli, June 7, 1797)
4. "I cherish everyone's right to their religious beliefs, no matter how comical." Herman Melville
5. Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
6. Apes evolved from creationists
7. If we're all God's children, then what makes Jesus so special?
8. Jesus saves! The rest of us use credit cards.
9. Militant Agnostic: I don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU!
10. Born right the first time, thanks!
11. Reality > Belief
12. There's a Sucker born every minute, but the real money is made from those Born Again.

And from here:

1. "If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." Thomas Szasz
2. "Beware the man of one book." St. Thomas Aquinas
   
3. "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell
4. "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." Napoleon
5. "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." Napoleon
   
6. "The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr." Prophet Muhammad
7. "Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?" Nietzsche
8. "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." Nietzsche
9. "In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes into contact with reality at any point." Nietzsche
10. "If god created us in his image we have certainly returned the compliment." Voltaire
11. "It is hard to free fools from chains they revere." Voltaire
    
12. "Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." Voltaire
13. "The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool." Voltaire
14. "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." Thomas Jefferson
15. "If you understand everything, you must be misinformed." Japanese proverb
16. "The believer is happy; the doubter is wise." Hungarian proverb
17. "Religion is not merely the opium of the masses; it's the cyanide." Tom Robbins
18. "Nothing overshadows truth so much as authority." Leon B. Alberti
    
19. "To use the term blind faith, is to use an adjective needlessly." Julian Ruck
20. "Nothing brings people together more, than mutual hatred." Henry Rollins
21. "The church tries to save sinners, but science seeks to stop their manufacture." Elbert Hubbard
22. "Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin." Robert G. Ingersoll
23. "Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." Peter Ustinov
24. "The death of dogma is the birth of morality." Immanuel Kant
25. "If you would be a real seeker after truth...doubt, as far as possible, all things." Descartes
    

Nice.